Is the Lamanite Dark Skin Literal or Figurative?

variety of skin colors from light to dark
Summary: I believe that statements about the dark skin of the Lamanites is figurative because when the scriptures use adjectives like black, dark, and white, as well as the noun skin, they are metaphorical references to people’s spiritual state. What follows is my research and reasons for believing so.  

My Daughter’s Experience in Seminary

I have been thinking about writing this article for a few years. One cause of delay has been the need to research the subject, and while that’s not complete something happened recently that prompted me to finally do it. A few months ago, my oldest daughter started early morning LDS Seminary. She has good teachers and this has been a good experience for her spiritual development. Several weeks ago, when I got home from work, my daughter asked if the dark skin of the Lamanites was literal or figurative. I’m sure she only asked because she has overheard me tell my wife that I think it is figurative. I responded that I felt it was spiritual in nature and not literal but that I am understanding of other Latter-day Saints who believe it is literal.

My daughter continued by saying that her class had recently studied the part of the Book of Mormon talking about the dark skin of the Lamanites. In class, she asked her teacher the same question about whether the dark skin was literal or figurative. The teacher said it was literal and that was the end of the discussion. While I understand the teacher’s position, it was disappointing that the alternative viewpoint was so summarily dismissed. As far as I know, the Church has never made a statement on whether the dark skin is literal or not. A search of this topic on LDS.org will yield no helpful results, at least it hasn’t for me and I have tried many variations of keywords. I did, however, find several articles and lesson manuals that just assume the dark skin of the Lamanites is literal and it is treated that way in the literature.

My Evolving Thoughts on the Subject

Growing up in the LDS Church, I learned at an early age the story of how “the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon” the Lamanites, a group of people, generally known for their wickedness, in the Book of Mormon (2 Nephi 5:21). I was taught that the black skin mentioned in that verse, and the dark skin mentioned in several others, was a literal reference to their skin pigmentation turning a darker color. As a young man, I had no reason not to accept this explanation, so I believed it. Later, in my own Seminary experience, I recall a teacher stressing that the dark skin of the Lamanites was a sign of the curse, and not the curse itself. The curse was being cut off from the Spirit and presence of God and thus being cut off from God’s blessings.

In recent years, though, I have had many experiences that have caused me to question the literal interpretation of the dark skin of the Lamanites. I have read and studied the scriptures and what many Church members with a variety of opinions have said about those verses. (The present-day Church leaders, as reflected by content on LDS.org, has almost nothing to say on the subject.) My research has revealed mounting evidence that the references to dark skin, and black skin as well, are not literal but rather figurative and spiritual in nature. While the issue is not completely settled in my mind. I think there is more evidence that it is metaphorical and I’m finding it harder and harder to believe that God changed anyone’s skin color because of unrighteous behavior.

Blacks in the Scriptures

One of the first times I can remember questioning the literal interpretation of dark skins was when I watched some material put together by Darius Gray and Marvin Perkins. Brother Perkins came across my Mormon Mission Prep website and reached out to me. He and Brother Gray had put together a video series called Blacks in the Scriptures in which they discuss in depth many of these topics about race and skin color. I link to them below and highly recommend watching the videos.

Brother Gray’s video called Blacks in the Bible, does a great job documenting some of the prominent people in the bible that were black—black being defined as descendants of Ham, since the Bible really doesn’t talk about race or skin color in the same way we do today. Prominent black, or bi-racial with some degree of black ancestry, figures in the Bible include Melchizedek, Abraham’s wife Hagar, Joseph’s wife Asenath, Boaz, Uriah, King David, and therefore even Jesus Christ.

Brother Perkins’ video, titled Skin Color & Curses,  is also excellent and in it he shows that “the words black and white do not refer to literal skin color in the scriptures.” He points out that “every scripture in the Book of Mormon that made you believe that the Lamanites had a darker skin than the Nephites, every last one of them, have a new footnote on it” in the post 1981 edition of the scriptures leading reading to the Topical Guide entry on Spiritual Darkness. Brother Perkins points out that the adjectives dark, black, and white and the noun skin, as used referring to people, are figurative and spiritual in nature.

  • Black means: gloomy, dark, impure, and hidden
  • Dark means: filthy, wicked, impure, and the absence of light
  • White or fair means: clean, pure, true, and righteous
  • Skin means the outward appearance and countenance

Studying the Scriptures on Skin Color Myself

To me, the interpretation that the dark or black skin is a spiritual, metaphorical reference feels right, and equally, the literal interpretation feels that it is not right. So, after watching the videos above, I was sufficiently motivated to research the subject in more depth myself. It’s not that I didn’t believe Brothers Gray and Perkins, quite the contrary, they make an excellent case. But I did want to study it myself, do the keyword searches they talk about (and others), see what conclusions I would come to, and then see what the Spirit of God had to say on the subject.

It is so wonderful that modern computing and internet technology allows us to not only access the scriptures at our convenience, but the ability to perform keyword searches to improve our studying and the comprehensiveness of our learning. I won’t present my full research here in this article, as it is quite lengthy, but please go to LDS.org/scriptures and perform your own searches to confirm my findings. If you have already come to the conclusion that the Lamanite’s skin was literally physically darker than the Nephites, then these scriptures may not persuade you from that view. But if you take a step back, reserve judgement, and try to understand the full context, the Lord’s intent, and the original meaning that the author was trying to convey, you very well may come to the conclusions I have.

Adjectives Black and Blackness in the Scriptures

The non-human uses of the adjective “black” are numerous in the scriptures—they are used to describe horses, the weather, fire, lack of visibility, and the landscape.  I’m not sure how much they influence how we look at the adjective in reference to people, but perhaps there is a connection. By my count, there are only about 16 instances of the word black or blackness in the scriptures that talk about people. Removing references to hair and leprosy and others like that, we are left with these that seem to be relevant to our discussion.

Scripture Verse Scripture Quote My Comment
Lamentations 4:8 Referring to the wickedness of the House of Israel, Jeremiah says “their visage is blacker than a coal.” Visage is a person’s face, form or features; the surface of an object. This reference could be literal but more likely is metaphorical.
Job 30:30 Job cries, “my skin is black upon me.” This is probably not a reference to skin pigmentation here. He was sick, so if it is literal, the black skin was a reference to diseased, rotting flesh.
Lamentations 5:10 “Our skin was black like an oven because of the terrible famine.” I don’t think it’s describing skin pigmentation here. Seems to be more of a reference to general health.
Song of Solomon 1:6 Solomon says, “Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me.” There are no footnotes to help. It seems like a reference to tanned skin.
Jeremiah 8:21 “For the hurt of the daughter of my people am I hurt; I am black.” The footnote on black says it is a Hebrew idiom meaning “gloomy.”
Nahum 2:10 “faces of them all gather blackness.” Again, “gloomy.”
Joel 2:6 “all faces shall gather blackness.” Ditto
2 Nephi 5:21 “wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.” We are given some clues like the parallelism to “delightsome” to indicate Nephi is speaking of spiritual blackness. And even if you believe the skin was literally darkened, “blackness” seems like an exaggeration as a physical description of their skin being a little darker than their peers.
2 Nephi 26:33 “he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female” Applying the context of skin color to this mention of black and white is subjective and certainly a contemporary way of thinking, but there is no objective evidence this this is a reference to race or skin color.
Moses 7:8 “and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.” Without more information, it’s impossible to say if this is a literal or figurative use of the word black.
Moses 7:22 “the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.” Ditto.

While I certainly understand why some people have concluded that uses of the adjective black are referring to the color of people’s skin, as you can see, such a conclusion is far from certain. In fact, I think it is a far greater stretch to say these are references to literal skin than to say they are metaphors. At the very least, people on the literal side of the fences should acknowledge that the figurative interpretation is equally valid for these verses. For me, looking at the use of the word “black” holistically, the bulk of the references seem to clearly be figurative references to spiritual darkness.

Adjectives Dark and Darkness in the Scriptures

Like the word black, dark can be used in a variety of ways. Most of the instances of the words dark or darkness in the scriptures are meaning the absence of light, evil works, and also many instances where it refers to weather, or often it describes things that are hidden. To focus our discussion, though, let’s just talk about those instances dealing with people.

Scripture Verse Scripture Quote My Comment
Matt 6:23 “if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness” Darkness is a metaphor for not having the guidance of God.
1 John 1:5 “God is light, and in him is no darkness at all” Clearly metaphorical, meaning spiritual darkness.
1 Nephi 12:23 “after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations.” Loathsome, filthy, idle, and abominable are all figurative descriptions of their spiritual state. Would “dark” be any different?
2 Nephi 30:6 “for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and a delightsome people.” Scales footnote takes you to the Topical Guide entries for Spiritual Darkness and Spiritual Blindness. Pre-1981 it said “a white and a delightsome”. Obviously, the Church considers “white” a reference to spiritual purity and not skin color.
Jacob 3:9 “revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness” Dark skin is again made a literary parallel with filthiness. To me, it’s clearly figurative darkness.
Mosiah 27:29 “I was in the darkest abyss; but now I behold the marvelous light of God.” Clearly this is spiritual darkness that Alma was talking about.
Alma 3:6 “the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression” Even those who believe in the literal dark skin color believe that skin color is a sign of the curse not the curse itself. Yet the scripture clearly says the dark mark was the curse. If the dark mark is the curse, it must be referring to spiritual darkness, or separation from the light of God.
Alma 19:6 “he knew that the dark veil of unbelief was being cast away from his mind, and the light which did light up his mind, which was the light of the glory of God …yea, this light had infused such joy into his soul, the cloud of darkness having been dispelled, and that the light of everlasting life was lit up in his soul” Clearly, this verse is talking about spiritual light and spiritual darkness.
Alma 26:3 “for our brethren, the Lamanites, were in darkness, yea, even in the darkest abyss, but behold, how many of them are brought to behold the marvelous light of God!” Again, it’s obvious that this is spiritual darkness and spiritual light.
Mormon 5:15 “for this people shall be scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people” Again, dark is lumped together with filthy and loathsome. It doesn’t make sense to insert a comment about skin color here, therefore it would have to be a reference to spirituality.
D&C 84: 50, 53 “by this you may know they are under the bondage of sin, because they come not unto me… And by this you may know the righteous from the wicked, and that the whole world groaneth under sin and darkness even now.” This “darkness” doesn’t refer to a person, but it does equate darkness with wickedness and the bondage of sin.

Again, the overwhelming majority of times the word darkness is used to describe people, perhaps every time depending on one’s interpretation, it is clearly a spiritual darkness. This leads me to believe that the few times where it is ambiguous, darkness is more likely than not a figurative description.

Adjectives White and Fair in the Scriptures

If one believes, as I do, that black and dark are metaphorical references describing the spiritual state of people in the scriptures, then it would follow that the adjectives white and fair would also be spiritual references. Let’s take a look.

Scripture Verse Scripture Quote My Comment
1 Ne 13:15 In reference to the one or more of the groups that colonized America: “I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain.” You can interpret that as a reference to skin color, I presume, but white as in good and righteous and holy makes more sense to me.
2 Nephi 30:6 “for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and a delightsome people.” While this verse doesn’t presently say “white”, before 1981 the verse did say they were “a white and a delightsome”. Research shows “pure” was the original intent of Joseph Smith, but it is very interesting that “white” and “pure” convey the same meaning.
Jacob 2:32 “I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.” I suppose, you could interpret fair as light colored, or fair skinned, but I tend to think not.  Fair more likely means good, honest, pleasing, clean, and pure.
Jacob 3:8 “unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God” White skin here is clearly a metaphor for spiritual cleanliness.
3 Nephi 2:14-15 “those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites; And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites” I interpret this as their countenance became bright and pure and spiritually clean.
3 Nephi 19:25 “And it came to pass that Jesus blessed them as they did pray unto him; and his countenance did smile upon them, and the light of his countenance did shine upon them, and behold they were as white as the countenance and also the garments of Jesus” White here is clearly a reference to purity, brilliance, and glory and not literal skin color.
3 Nephi 19:30 “And when Jesus had spoken these words he came again unto his disciples; and behold they did pray steadfastly, without ceasing, unto him; and he did smile upon them again; and behold they were white, even as Jesus.” The footnote on white in this and the verse above takes you to the Topical Guide entry for Transfiguration.
Morm. 9:6 “that perhaps ye may be found spotless, pure, fair, and white, having been cleansed by the blood of the Lamb” Few, if any, would argue that white here is a reference to skin color. It clearly equates white with spotless, pure, and spiritually clean.

On the white end of the spectrum and the black end, these adjectives are consistently used to describe people’s spiritual state.

The Noun Skin in the Scriptures

It was a bit surprising to me, though it should not have been, that in this research I realized that not only are the adjectives black and dark metaphorical, but even the noun skin is figurative in nature. To prove the point, I’ll go through a similar exercise as above. Many of the scripture references are repetitive from above, so I’ll try to be brief. I do, though, feel it is worthwhile to point out that skin is often a metaphor in the scriptures, as are clothing or garments. Filthy garments are often a representation of wickedness, disobedience to God’s commandments, and spiritual uncleanliness. Again, for brevity, I’ll leave out the obvious and non-human references to skin

Scripture Verse Scripture Quote My Comment
2 Nephi 5:21 “For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.” There is simply no precedence, throughout the course of Biblical history, for the Lord changing people’s literal skin color due to wickedness or righteousness. Why would this case be any different?
Jacob 3:5 “the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you.” “filthiness” is certainly spiritual in this verse. So would “skin” be physically or spiritual here? The scripture says the curse is on their skins and even literalists say dark skin is a sign but not the curse. Therefore I conclude that the cursed skin must be figurative.
Jacob 3:8 “I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God.” We talked about this one above. Skin in this verse reminds me of garments in 1 Nephi 12:10, “because of their faith in the Lamb of God their garments are made white in his blood.”
Mosiah 17:13 “scourged his skin with faggots, yea, even unto death.” Now this is one that does appear to be literally human skin.
Alma 44:18 “But behold, their naked skins and their bare heads were exposed to the sharp swords of the Nephites” Skin is most likely literal here, though it could mean leather clothing or their person in general.
3 Nephi 2:15 “And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites.” Based on everything else we’ve learned, it seems like white skin is a reference to a pure demeanor.

With a few exceptions, the use of the word “skin” in the scriptures is usually a reference to one’s outer appearance or general countenance and not the literal outer layer of the physical body.

Summary of Scripture Analysis

After conducting my own in-depth analysis of what the scriptures say about black and dark and white skin, I was more convinced than ever that these are metaphorical statements talking about the spiritual situation of people. The vast majority of the scripture verses that use the words “dark” and “skin” and “black” to describe people are obviously metaphorical–references to spiritual realities, rather than physical realities. This causes me to believe that the few scriptures that might appear on the surface to be literal references to dark skin should be reconsidered. And I pray that all will do that.

This figurative interpretation makes sense and feels right. I can certainly understand why the prophets who wrote the scriptures used this language. I know people who appear dark, gloomy, or otherwise troubled emotionally and spiritually, yet their skin pigmentation doesn’t change. While saying they have a black skin isn’t the type of contemporary language we would use, many people would certainly say they have a dark look about them. And that, I believe, is what the scriptures are saying.

Though the logic and reason I put forth are compelling, I could be wrong. The most important evidence is that which comes through the Holy Ghost, the arbiter of truth. So decide for yourself through study, prayer, and pondering and ask God what is correct. As the prophet Moroni taught, “if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost” (Moroni 10:4)

The Heart Metaphor

When I finished my scriptural analysis, I began to wonder if there is any other precedent in the scriptures for speaking metaphorically about bodily organs? Well, yes, as it turns out, there is a blaring obvious one: the heart. I didn’t perform the same in-depth study on this word, but a quick search on the scriptures section of LDS.org shows 1,475 occurrences of the word “heart” in the scriptures. I’m willing to bet that 99% of these instances are metaphorical and not the literal bodily organ that physical pumps blood through our veins and arteries. “Heart” is rather, in the scriptures, a reference to our inner most feelings. It’s our metaphorical core.

Who did sin, this man, or his parents?

During my in-depth scripture study, I had another troubling thought that made me run away from the literal interpretation. As I understand it, people who believe in the literal skin change also believe that African Americans, Hispanics, Polynesians, Native Americans, and anyone else through the history of time with non-white skin, got that way because either they or their ancestors sinned. Literalists take comfort is telling dark skinned people today that it was their ancestor and not them to blame for sinning and bring dark skin upon them and their posterity. But that doesn’t sit well with me. And such thinking reminds me of a story from the New Testament.

In John chapter 9, Jesus heals a man who was born blind. “As Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him” (John 9:1-3). To suggest that someone has dark or black skin color because they or their ancestors were unrighteous seems just as absurd as suggesting someone is born with a birth defect because of their or their parents wickedness. As Jesus taught, you cannot judge the righteousness of someone or their ancestors based solely on physical characteristics. And also very interesting is that Jesus used this moment to launch into a sermon on spiritual blindness (see John 9: 39-41).

What are Others Saying on the Subject?

After pondering and praying and doing the in-depth scripture study referenced above, I came to the belief that the Lamanite’s dark skin (and perhaps the blackness described about Cain, though I haven’t study his case in depth yet) was figurative. I could be proven wrong someday, but for now I do not see the proof, logic or reason behind the literal interpretation. The living prophets don’t appear to want to weigh in on the subject, based on the fact that there is next to nothing discussing this topic on LDS.org. But after coming to my conclusions, I thought perhaps I should check the wider internet and see what other faithful LDS Church members and are saying on the subject.

In the following sections, I will present what other church leaders and opinion leaders are saying on the subject. The first three are literalists. The four after that are figurative-ists, who appear to agree with my metaphorical interpretation of the subject. While two of the three literalists are former presidents of the Church, there statements are about 50 years old. The figurative-ist statements, do not carry the weight of prophets, but they are trustworthy sources and much more recent. My feeling from reviewing what is currently being said on the subject is that the tide is turning in the favor of the figurative interpretation of the Lamanite’s dark skin.

Joseph Fielding Smith – Literalist

The following quote is the only one I can find on LDS.org today about the subject. It is a quote from Joseph Fielding Smith, 10th President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from 1970 to 1972. This passage is quoted in the Book of Mormon Student Manual for Institute in a section that goes to great lengths to teach that dark skin of the Lamanites was the sign of the curse and not the curse itself.

“The dark skin was placed upon the Lamanites so that they could be distinguished from the Nephites and to keep the two peoples from mixing. The dark skin was the sign of the curse [not the curse itself]. The curse was the withdrawal of the Spirit of the Lord. …The dark skin of those who have come into the Church is no longer to be considered a sign of the curse. … These converts are delightsome and have the Spirit of the Lord” (Answers to Gospel Questions, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., 5 vols. [1957–66], 3:122–23).

While I hate to disagree with a prophet, clearly I do. Neither President Smith nor the Seminary manual explicitly state their opinion that the dark skin is literal skin pigmentation, there is no need to go to such lengths to separate the curse from the skin if they didn’t think that. Their opinion is clearly implied.

I agree with them, of course, that there is nothing inherently cursed about literal dark skin. Yet I believe it is incorrect to say that the dark skin spoken of in the scriptures is not equivalent to the curse. Alma 3:6 says “the skins of the Lamanites were dark, …which was a curse upon them.” And Jacob 3:5 talks about “the cursing which hath come upon their skins.” In both cases, the curse is clearly equated with the dark skin.

These scriptures present a problem for those who feel that dark skin is literal, yet don’t want to offend and don’t want to think that dark skin is a sign of a curse any longer. If one believes the figurative meaning, as I do, and that the dark skin is a metaphor that means living spiritual darkness, then there is nothing wrong with saying the dark skin is the curse. I find the more consistent position with the scriptures is the figurative interpretation about skin and color.

Spencer W. Kimball – Literalist

Spencer W. Kimball, 12th president of the Church, made a statement indicating that he believed in the literal interpretation of skin changing from white to dark and back again. In the October 1960 General Conference he said: “I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today … they are fast becoming a white and delightsome people…. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised…. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.”

A statement like this would obviously be offensive to many people today and I only include it to illustrate his viewpoint that skin color literally changes due to righteousness and wickedness. I don’t know if his anecdotal evidence was ever corroborated. The program he spoke of was one in which Latter-day Saint families were asked to take native American children in need of foster care into their homes. My grandparents participated in the program and they gained great love for the children they brought into their home, but unlike President Kimball, I never heard that their skin tones became physically lighter. I think it’s unlikely that we would find any miraculous changing of skin color today, either lighter or darker, based on righteousness or wickedness.

Rodney Turner – Literalist

Prior to my research on this subject, I had never heard of Rodney Turner. He is a retired professor who taught in the College of Religious Instruction at Brigham Young University (BYU) for thirty-two years. In his 1989 essay titled The Lamanite Mark found, he is adamant that the darkened skin is a literal reference to skin pigmentation. He goes so far as to say this physical change was a miracle of God. While I disagree with his literal interpretation, I wanted to present his argument as it represents what was taught at BYU for many years and the thoughts of many members of the Church still today.

“Symbolic of the withdrawal of the Spirit from their lives, a “skin of blackness” [2] came upon the rebellious Laman, Lemuel, their families, and those sons and daughters of Ishmael who chose to affiliate with them. There can be no question but that their altered skin color was a miraculous act of God; it cannot be understood in purely metaphoric terms, nor as being nothing more than the natural consequence of prolonged exposure to the sun. Nephi was explicit that “the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them” (2 Nephi 5:21).” (Rodney Turner, “The Lamanite Mark”, BYU Religious Studies Center)

I find it fascinating that even Rodney, in his footnote 2, admits “the Lamanite mark was only a relatively darker pigmentation, not a literally black skin.” So he will admit that the black skin reference is hyperbole, but he’s not willing to say that’s it’s metaphorical altogether.

Hugh Nibley – Figurative-ist

Hugh Nibley is one of my favorite LDS authors. While he never held a position of high leadership at the Church, he was a scholar, a professor at BYU and is highly regarded within the LDS community for his support of archaeological, linguistic, historical, and doctrinal claims of Joseph Smith and the LDS Church. On this topic, he made these two statements:

“Lamanite darkness was ethnic in the broadest sense, being both hereditary and cultural, shifting between “white and delightsome” and “dark and loathsome,” along with manners and customs as well as intermarriage (Alma 3:4—10). But inseparable from the cultural heritage of ancient tribes were the markings that members of the society put on themselves, without which they would be considered outcasts. People who marked their foreheads with red after the Lamanite custom “knew not that they were fulfilling the words of God when they began to mark themselves in their foreheads,” thus showing that the Lamanite curse had fallen on them (Alma 3:18).” (Abraham in Egypt – The Trouble with Ham)

“The Book of Mormon always mentions the curse of the dark skin in connection with and as part of a larger picture: “After they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people,” etc. … We are told (Alma 3:13, 14, 18) that while the fallen people “set the mark upon themselves,” it was none the less God who was marking them: “I will set a mark upon them,” etc. So natural and human was the process that it suggested nothing miraculous to the ordinary observer. …The mark was not a racial thing but was acquired by “whosoever suffered himself to be led away by the Lamanites” (Alma 3:10); Alma moreover defines a Nephite as anyone observing “the tradition of their fathers” (Alma 3:11). Which makes the difference between Nephite and Lamanite a cultural, not a racial, one. Does this also apply to the dark skin? Note that the dark skin is never mentioned alone but always as attending a generally depraved way of life, which also is described as the direct result of the curse. When the Lamanites become “white” again, it is by living among the Nephites as Nephites, i.e., adopting the Nephite way of life (3 Nephi 2:15—16).” (Lehi in the Desert; The World of the Jaredites; There Were Jaredites  >  Desert Ways and Places)

Brother Nibley makes an excellent point about how the Book of Mormon defines Nephites and Lamanites by the traditions they follow, thus making it a cultural divide and not a racial one. Brother Nibley says more on the subject if you want to read the whole chapter. For example, he goes on to say that “the cultural picture may not be the whole story of the dark skin of the Lamanites,” but it is the predominant one and any differences in skin tones between the two groups are likely only incidental.

John L. Sorenson – Figurative-ist

Dr. John L. Sorenson was chairman of the Department of Anthropology at Brigham Young University when he published his thorough work of scholarship, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. While I haven’t read this yet, I have read another book by Sorenson, Mormon’s Map, which I thoroughly enjoyed. This is what he said:

“The skin shades of surviving peoples in Book of Mormon lands include a substantial range, from dark brown to virtual white. These colors cover nearly the same range as were found anciently around the Mediterranean coast and in the Near East. It is likely that the objective distinction in skin hue between Nephites and Lamanites was less marked than the subjective difference. The scripture is clear that the Nephites were prejudiced against the Lamanites (Jacob 3:5, Mosiah 9:1–2, Alma 26:23–25). That must have influenced how they perceived their enemies. The Nephite description of the Lamanites falls into a pattern known in the Near East. The Sumerian city dwellers in Mesopotamia of the third millennium BC viewed the Amorites, Abraham’s desert-dwelling relatives, as “dark” savages who lived in tents, ate their food raw, left the dead unburied, and cultivated no crops. Urban Syrians still call the Bedouin nomads “the wild beasts.” The Nephite picture of their relatives, in Jarom 1:6 and Enos 1:20, sounds so similar to the Near Eastern epithets that this language probably should be considered a literary formula rather than an objective description, labeling applied to any feared, despised, “backward” people. But all this does not exclude a cultural and biological difference between the two groups. The question is how great the difference was; we may doubt that it was as dramatic as the Nephite recordkeepers made out.” (Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, 90.)

Armand L. Mauss – Figurative-ist

Armand L. Mauss is a professor emeritus of Sociology and Religious Studies at Washington State University. He is a lifelong Mormon and a returned missionary. He is recognized by some as one of the leading Mormon intellectuals of his generation. He has authored many books on Mormonism such as The Angel and the Beehive: The Mormon Struggle with Assimilation, and is the coeditor of Neither White nor Black: Mormon Scholars Confront the Race Issue in a Universal Church. I haven’t ever read anything but a few excerpts from him, so I’m not sure how much weight to put on his writings. But he does appear to be an opinion leader in the LDS community and he does agree with me, so I include a quote from him below.

“In modern colloquial English (or American) we sometimes speak of people as having “thick” or “thin” skins, without intending any literal dermatological meaning. Attributions of “white” versus “black” or “dark” skins could be read in a similarly figurative manner, as they might have been by Joseph Smith himself (or by his Nephite authors). The reader therefore need not attribute racist intentions when the Book of Mormon uses such terms as dark or filthy versus white or pure, especially when “racial traits,” such as skin color, are not even explicitly mentioned—which is the case most of the time.” (Armand L. Mauss, All Abraham’s Children, 128.)

Brant A. Gardner – Figurative-ist

Brant Gardner writes for the FairMormon website, a publication of the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR). I have read many of their articles over the years and belief it to be a trustworthy source. Brant A. Gardner (M.A. State University of New York Albany) is the author of many papers and presentations on Mormonism including “Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon” and “The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon.” The following is an excerpt from his book, “Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon,” a chapter entitled What Does the Book of Mormon Mean by “Skin of Blackness”?

“It is much easier to compile a list of writers who take the phrase literally than of those who suggest an alternate reading. The most typical reading is that there was some type of dramatic change that turned white skin into black skin. A representative of this school of thought is Milton R. Hunter of the Council of the Seventy: ‘As is well-known, two peoples—a white race and those of a darker color—inhabited ancient America for approximately one thousand years’ time. The white race was called Nephites and the darker race Lamanites.’ … For Elder Hunter, the change in the skin color is absolutely physical and remains a distinction throughout Book of Mormon history. He provides no explanation for how this alteration occurs, other than to note that it comes through God.”

“…With this much disagreement on a single phrase in the text, how can we know how it should be read? There are some keys that we should use, and the very first is to remember the dangers of reading ourselves into a text in ways that the text did not intend.”

“…Before beginning with the text itself, it is important to clarify some facts that will help us sort the textual usage from our modern assumptions. The first is the notion of a particular color associated with skin. All human populations have variations in color, and there are pigmentation differences in all populations. While there is a set of people whose skin can be very black, they are not native to the western hemisphere. Saying that any Amerindian has a black skin is incorrect even in modern skin color nomenclature. They are called “red.” It should be recognized, however, that they are not “red.” Those whose skin is called “white” are also not white. Asians are termed “yellow,” although they certainly do not have yellow skin. Skin color designations are cultural descriptions, not scientific ones. They are based on some visual perception, but coalesce into large categories that reflect the human tendency to categorize people.”

“…Captain Moroni, working to free Nephite prisoners, sends wine to their Lamanite guards, hoping to intoxicate them (Alma 55). Because they would not accept such a gift from a Nephite, Moroni finds a Lamanite in his own troops, a former guard of the Lamanite king. Accompanied by other Nephites, this soldier takes the wine to the guards, and Moroni’s plan is successful. Of significance is the fact that Moroni had to “search” for a Lamanite soldier. Had he been “black” in contrast to the “white” of the Nephites, his identity should have been readily apparent. Furthermore, on his mission to the guards, Nephites accompany him. A color difference should have immediately been apparent to the guards, but they do not notice the discrepancy. The best explanation for needing an authentic Lamanite is that Moroni needed his language skills, not his skin color, for the ruse.”

“…The mark is pigmentation if and only if the curse is pigmentation. Marking the forehead with paint appears to be sufficient to create an identifying “mark” that falls significantly short of altering body pigmentation. Possessing the mark cannot prove that the curse is skin color, because that would beg the very question that needs to be proved. The function of the mark is social separation, but it is the same insider/outsider barrier already discussed. Since the mark/curse can be removed by simply traversing that boundary, I conclude that it is unlikely that the mark or curse had anything to do with pigmentation.”

Conclusion

As lengthy as this article has been, it represents only a fraction of the research I have done. Overall, looking holistically at the topic, I believe there is little evidence to support believing that God literally turned the Lamanite’s darker brown or black because of their wickedness. And I don’t believe God has ever withheld blessings from anyone because of the color of their skin. Nor do I believe that physical skin color, lighter or darker, is a consequence of righteousness or wickedness. While in this article, I haven’t talked much about the blackness of Cain and his decedents, much of this analysis would of course apply to that subject. But as I have not specifically studied Cain or Ham or their descendants or the implications on them, I’ll have to leave that for another day.

To me, the conclusion is clear. Mentions of dark, black, white, and skin, in reference to people in the scriptures, is a metaphorical device used to convey the state of people’s spirituality. The discussion of skin color in the scriptures, particularly the Book of Mormon, can easily be interpreted as figurative and spiritual in nature, and not literal skin pigmentation. I wish the Church would at least officially acknowledge this as a valid interpretation, but until then, me and the others who believe this way will have to move forward with faith.

Why Does This Matter?

As I have been studying this issue over the past days, week, months, and years, I have often shared my findings and conclusions with my wife. I appreciate her listening to me, even though she is less interested in the subject than I am. Recently she asked me why this issue matters so much to me to cause me to spend so much time studying it and writing up this report. This is my answer:

  1. The Truth. I am always interested in finding and understanding the truth. I think there is intrinsic value in coming into alignment with the truth. I think at some point in the future all truth, religious, historic, and scientific will all come together in one whole truth. There is power in the truth: “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32).
  2. Racial Equality. I think the things discussed above, if embraced by the members of the Church, would go a long way to showing that we truly believe and will act in harmony with the scriptures that teach that God loves all his children, regardless of race or other external factors. Scriptures like:
    • 1 Samuel 16:7 “For the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.”
    • Acts 10: 34-35 “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.”
    • Romans 10: 12 “For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.”
    • 2 Nephi 26: 28 “Hath the Lord commanded any that they should not partake of his goodness? Behold I say unto you, Nay; but all men are privileged the one like unto the other, and none are forbidden.”
    • 2 Nephi 26:33 “he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him … all are alike unto God.”
  3. Healing. As a Church overall as well as many members within the Church, we have often not acted in accordance with the teachings in point #2 above, and therefore much healing is needed. Acknowledging these truths and acting in harmony with these teachings of Jesus is a necessary step to heal the wounds caused by sin and mistakes and start the process of atonement.
  4. Unity. There is one race that matters eternally—the human race. We have been commanded by God many times to be united as one:
    • D&C 38:27 “I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine.”
    • John 17: 11,21 “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us.”

I pray that they day will soon come when we will be one with God and with each other. When “we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:13).

The Meaning of Atonement

Summary: The atonement, the atonement of Jesus Christ, and the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ mean separate things and understanding the difference can help us apply atoning principles in our lives.

atonement basic doctrine least understood truths McConkieWhen I was a freshman at college, I remember hearing a quote from Bruce R. McConkie about the atonement that resonated with me. In the April 1985 General Conference, he said, “The atonement of Christ is the most basic and fundamental doctrine of the gospel, and it is the least understood of all our revealed truths” (The Purifying Power of Gethsemane). Wow! How could that be? If the atonement is the most fundamental doctrine of the gospel of Jesus Christ, it seems like it should be the most studied and most understood gospel truth. I took Elder McConkie’s statement as a personal challenge to study and understand the atonement better and I have strived to do so throughout my life since then.

One of my initial efforts to learn more about the atonement was to read James E. Talmage’s Jesus the Christ, one of the books on the approved missionary reading list, when I was a full-time missionary in Argentina. That was an educational and spiritually uplifting experience. Through the years I have read countless talks from LDS Church prophets, general authorities, and scholars on the subject of the atonement. A few years ago, I read Brother Callister’s book, The Infinite Atonement, and that was a very enlightening and helpful book. But the biggest strides I have made in understanding the atonement and how it applies to us has come through my personal scripture study and the spirit of revelation that has come to me as I have done so.

A few years ago, I had a major breakthrough in understanding the atonement when I was studying 2 Nephi chapter 2. I had a marvelous spiritual enlightening about the meaning of atonement. I had begun reading the Book of Mormon that time through with a new mindset and a fresh pair of eyes. I tried to erase any preconceived ideas about the gospel, and I tried to take in the concepts of the Book of Mormon in their purest form from God and the prophets who wrote the book. I didn’t realize it at the time, but I was applying some advice from the McConkie talk referenced above to search the scriptures and “cast aside the philosophies of men and the wisdom of the wise and hearken to that Spirit which is given to us to guide us into all truth.”

As I read 2 Nephi chapter 2 verse 10, I realized that this was the first time in The Book of Mormon that the word atonement was used, so I paid special attention to its context and meaning. This led to a major outpouring of enlightenment from the Spirit of God, and somehow, in that moment, I gained great new insight into what atonement is and what it means. It seemed to me that the atonement was being spoken of in a way I had not previously defined it. Atonement sounded like a gospel principle that was being applied, not an event or something the Savior did for me. Of course, the Messiah did lay “down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit” as mentioned two verses earlier. But Lehi, who was speaking in this chapter, did not seem to equate the Savior’s death and resurrection with the word atonement.

first use of word atonement in the Book of Mormon2 Nephi 2:10 “And because of the intercession for all, all men come unto God; wherefore, they stand in the presence of him, to be judged of him according to the truth and holiness which is in him. Wherefore, the ends of the law which the Holy One hath given, unto the inflicting of the punishment which is affixed, which punishment that is affixed is in opposition to that of the happiness which is affixed, to answer the ends of the atonement.”

 

I began to realize that the previous definition of atonement in my mind was limited and the Lord started to expand my understanding. I’ll elaborate on my expanded view of the principle of atonement as we continue in this article, but suffice it to say for now that taking the shackles off my definition of atonement was key to understanding its meaning, power, and application to my life.

My understanding of atonement has continued to grow and evolve in the proceeding years as I shed misconceptions and gained new understanding through scripture study, reading articles by authorities, and through the spirit of revelation as I pondered the subject. While I think many Church members will benefit from my perspective on the atonement which I will share, I don’t claim that that my knowledge or understanding is complete or perfect. I simply feel the Lord has explained things to me in a way that my brain can understand them. This is my mental model of the atonement, if you will. If your mental model is different, then that’s okay. And if my mental model is wrong, then it is the fault of man, and not the fault of God.

Definitions of Atonement Differentiated

In my research, study, and pondering, I have identified three differentiated definitions of atonement:

  • Atonement as in the Atoning Sacrifice of Jesus Christ = The act of the Son of God suffering for our sins, bleeding from every pore, dying on the cross, and resurrecting on the third day.
  • Atonement as in the Atoning Mission of Jesus Christ = Everything that Christ has done and will do to make it possible for each of us to become like Him and the Father and become one with them and live in their presence eternally.
  • Atonement as in the Application of Atoning Principles = The eternal process of becoming one with God that each one of us must experience to become like Him and live in His presence eternally.

atonement meanings differentiated circles

Our Savior Jesus Christ is a key component of all three definitions. The Savior’s role is obvious in the first two, and the third cannot be completed without Him. We cannot each personally and fully apply the principles of atonement to our lives without the assistance of Jesus Christ. “Since man had fallen he could not merit anything of himself; but the sufferings and death of Christ atone for their sins, through faith and repentance” (Alma 22:14).

I may be getting a little bit ahead of myself, though. Before we dive into more detail on each one of the three meanings of atonement, let’s talk about the overarching meaning of the root word atone.

At One – The Atonement Etymology

I think one of the first keys in understanding the meaning of the atonement is understanding the origins and root meaning of the word. The “ment” suffix in the English language denotes an action or resulting state, a product, or means. Thus, the noun “atonement” is a form of the verb “atone,” and atonement means the action of atoning, or the resulting state of atoning, or the product of atoning, or the means of atoning. LDS scholar Hugh Nibley, who played an important role in helping increase my understanding of the atonement, confirms the etymology of the word atone. “Atonement, an accepted theological term, comes from neither a Greek nor a Latin word, but is good old English and really does mean, when we write it out, “at-one-ment,” denoting both a state of being “at one” with another and the process by which that end is achieved.” (The Atonement of Jesus Christ, Part 1 by Hugh W. Nibley).

Atonement state of being at one Hugh Nibley

When you take that as your definition of atonement, a whole new world of meaning and applications open up—at least it did so for me. For example, I have often thought long and hard about what it means that God the Father and Jesus Christ are one and what it means for us to be one with God (see John 17: 11, 21). My improved clarity on the meaning of the atonement helps me understand more what that means and how it is possible. I also begin to see how foundational the atonement is to the gospel and how it is an all-encompassing principle of truth. I begin to understand more the statement from Brigham Young that “Mormonism includes all truth. There is no truth but what belongs to the Gospel. It is life, eternal life; it is bliss; it is the fulness of all things in the gods and in the eternities of the gods” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, Chapter 2).

If it’s not all coming together yet, I apologize. The Spirit of God has, at times, given me great bursts of much knowledge all at once and also taught me line upon line over time. It all makes sense in my mind, but sometimes it’s difficult for me to figure out how to best present these topics in a linear fashion like this article. I think if we continue, it will start to make more sense. Let’s go back to those three definitions of atonement and look at each in more detail. We’ll start with the more granular definition and move up to the larger and overarching definitions.

Atonement as in the Atoning Sacrifice of Jesus Christ

Throughout my life in the Church, I have often heard the atonement equated with Jesus’ suffering in the garden of Gethsemane when he bled from every pore (Luke 22:44 and D&C 19:18). Or some have expanded that definition to say that the atonement began in Gethsemane and continued through the Savior’s scourging and crucifixion and resurrection. As I now understand, though, the Lord’s excruciating suffering in Gethsemane and on the cross, which he faithfully endured to the end for us, is better labeled the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. While the events over those days could qualify as the most crucial part of the atonement, I do not equate them with the atonement. The atonement, the general and overall term, is much bigger and we will explore that further in a moment.

I think people limit and hurt themselves by abbreviating the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ to a simple phrase like the atonement. Misuse of the term atonement may be a contributing factor to many members not understanding the atonement or how to apply the power of Jesus Christ in their lives. I think we as a Church would be better off to not use incomplete generalization phrases like “the atonement” or even “the atonement of Jesus Christ” to describe the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, even though those shortcut phrases have been used quite frequently by both Church members and leaders for many years. I know it will take a lot of time to break this habit, but it needs to happen if we are to really understand and benefit from these gospel principles.

President Russel M. Nelson, at the April 2017 General Conference, made some remarks to help us as a Church begin the process of better drawing on the power and blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ when he corrected our language around the use of the word atonement. He said:

It is doctrinally incomplete to speak of the Lord’s atoning sacrifice by shortcut phrases, such as “the Atonement” or “the enabling power of the Atonement” or “applying the Atonement” or “being strengthened by the Atonement.” These expressions present a real risk of misdirecting faith by treating the event as if it had living existence and capabilities independent of our Heavenly Father and His Son, Jesus Christ….There is no amorphous entity called ‘the Atonement’ upon which we may call for succor, healing, forgiveness, or power. Jesus Christ is the source. Sacred terms such as Atonement and Resurrection describe what the Savior did, according to the Father’s plan, so that we may live with hope in this life and gain eternal life in the world to come” (Drawing the Power of Jesus Christ into Our Lives by President Russell M. Nelson).

doctrinally incomplete shortcut phrases atonement nelson

I have been talking to my wife for years about the real meaning of atonement and the frequent misuse of the term, so I was very glad to hear a high-ranking authority like President Nelson address the subject with all members of the Church in the worldwide General Conference.

As I believe is now clear, the atonement isn’t the same as the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The atonement, in its true definition, includes much more than just the suffering in Gethsemane and on the cross by our Savior. I don’t wish to diminish in any way those events and what He did for all humanity by suffering in dying and resurrecting for us. I just think the atonement, as a principle and process, is much larger and grander. Even the phrase “the atonement of Jesus Christ” means much more than the atoning sacrifice because it includes His life and mission and that leads us into the second definition of atonement.

Atonement as in the Atoning Mission of Jesus Christ

If we delineate the atonement of Jesus Christ from His atoning sacrifice, it’s clear that His atonement is bigger or encompasses much more. Again, the atoning sacrifice was the crucial part, but in my mind, the atonement of Jesus Christ neither began in Gethsemane nor ended at the resurrection. I believe His atonement is the entirety of His mission. If we had to put starting and ending point on the atonement of Jesus Christ, I would say it began at the foundation of the world when Jehovah said “Here am I, send me” (Abraham 3:27) and it will not end until all mankind returns to the presence of God (see 2 Nephi 2:8-10 and Alma 42:15,23).

atonement began at the foundation of the worldAs I have read the scriptures and studied and pondered them, I no longer equate the atonement of our Savior with what He did for us on the cross or in the garden of Gethsemane. Rather, I think of the entire, eternal mission of Jesus Christ as His Atonement, including the process, power, and ultimate completion of making us one with Him and the Father. President Nelson, in his talk referenced above, backs up this definition of the atonement. “As Latter-day Saints, we refer to His mission as the Atonement of Jesus Christ, which made resurrection a reality for all and made eternal life possible for those who repent of their sins and receive and keep essential ordinances and covenants.”

The Atonement of Jesus Christ is real and powerful and cannot be underestimated in its eternal importance and infinite reach. But I think that perhaps the Latter-day Saints would understand the atonement better and how it applies to their life if we would talk about it differently. In my experience, many people talk about the atonement as if it is a magical power Jesus hands to us or a magic wand we can wave in order to get blessings or other results. I believe that the atonement and the power therein and the applications in our lives are much more tangible than that, if we come to truly understand it. And I believe that if we would talk about atonement like we talk about other principles of the gospel that it would be more applicable to our daily lives and overcoming our struggles. And that’s a nice segue to the third definition of atonement.

Atonement as in the Application of Atoning Principles

At its highest level, I believe atonement is an eternal, ongoing principle. Understanding this principle is what has been really impactful in my life in recent years. As I have come to understand the atonement as a principle, I realize why the confusion exists for many people between understanding the atonement of Jesus Christ and applying it to our lives. In order to understand the atonement as a principle, let’s visit again the definition of the word atone, which, as Brother Nibley pointed out, literally means the state of being “at one.” In the religious sense particularly, being at one means being at one with God, whole, complete, or integral, and atonement is the process by which that state of being at one is achieved.

Brother Nibley points out that “the word atonement appears only once in the New Testament (Rom. 5:11 in the King James Version), and in the Revised Standard Version it does not appear at all, the translators preferring the more familiar word reconciliation. (See also footnote to Rom. 5:11 in the LDS edition of the King James Version.) Reconciliation is a very good word for atonement there, since it means literally to be seated again with someone (re-con-silio)—so that atonement is to be reunited with God” (The Atonement of Jesus Christ, Part 1 by Hugh W. Nibley). He further explains other near synonyms for atonement are redemption, rescue, and resurrection. In my own study, I have found additional near synonyms of atonement throughout the scriptures such as unity, oneness, sealing, one eternal round, circumspection, return, repent, perfect, opposition, overcome, restore, truth, and integrity. Even the scriptural literary pattern of chiasms, which I will not go into here, illustrates the eternal principle of atonement.

third law of motion isaac newton

Newton’s Third Law of Motion – For Every Action There is an Equal and Opposite Reaction. Graphic by Simply Fresh Designs

In my mind, I often visualize the principle of atonement as symmetrical patterns or a complete circle. Newton’s Third Law of Motion—For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction—is also a good illustration of the principle of atonement. The Book of Mormon prophet Lehi, I believe, was articulating this understanding of the concept of atonement when he said “For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things” (2 Nephi 2:11). This statement, not coincidentally, came immediately after the first usage of the word atonement in the Book of Mormon as discussed above.

Many, perhaps all, laws and principles and ordinances of the gospel have root in the principle of atonement. Repentance demands that we make recompense for our mistakes, where possible, so things that we have broken can be made whole, or at one again. Because of the effect of our sins (the first half of the symmetry), baptism washes us (the second half of the symmetry), thus bringing us back to our former state of cleanliness, wholeness, or oneness before God. The law of sacrifice illustrates many principles of atonement, not the least of which is how it points to the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ which was completed to make things whole, or at one again. A central part of Jesus earthly ministry was healing, or making whole or at one, things that had gone wrong in this life.  In the law of consecration, everything that God gives us (the first half of the symmetry) we give back to Him (the second half of the symmetry), thus returning to a state of oneness. Vicarious temple work for our ancestors is an example of the effort to make things at one, as we do ordinances for those who, if not for the sins of the world in which they lived, would have received them during their life.

Part of the Law of Moses, as I understand it, illustrates the principle of atonement by prescribing a punishment equal to the crime with an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth (Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20). Jesus taught the higher law to the Jews when he was on the earth, and that higher law also has roots in the principle of atonement. “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matt 5:38-39).

You may wonder how turning the other cheek is an illustration of the principle of atonement. I think the Book of Mormon prophet Nephi explains it well as he describes the suffering and crucifixion of the Savior which he saw in vision. “And the world, because of their iniquity, shall judge him to be a thing of naught; wherefore they scourge him, and he suffereth it; and they smite him, and he suffereth it. Yea, they spit upon him, and he suffereth it, because of his loving kindness and his long-suffering towards the children of men” (1 Nephi 19:9). We as mortal, imperfect beings commit sins, which is one half of the symmetry, and Jesus willing suffers for it, and that is the other half of the symmetry, thus bringing things back to a state of atonement.

When Jesus applied atoning principles to his life, we call that the atonement of Jesus Christ. We also need to apply atoning principles in our lives if we are to inherit the kingdom of Heaven and thus we need to perform our own work of atonement. In the Church, I’ve never heard anyone use language like that before, so I hope I’m not out of bounds putting it that way, but that is the natural conclusion of this line of thinking and the Spirit confirms its truthfulness to me. We help ourselves and others in the world get to the state of atonement by applying gospel principles. Take the following as a real-world, common example.

When someone cuts us off in traffic, we could get mad at them and yell and scream and cut them off in return, and that would be justified, but it does no one any good. Alternatively, we could also forgive them, let ourselves pay the consequence for their rude behavior, and then it does a world of good for them and for us. For us, it gives us power over our emotions and keeps us in control rather than being a slave to the natural man’s reaction. For them it also brings blessings, though it may more long-run than short-run, as they realize their mistakes and your magnanimity towards them, it will create feelings of sorrow initially, and then love and devotion toward you for enduring the effects of their mistakes. And you can see, then, how principles of atonement will eternally bless all parties in this fallen world in which we live. Applying atoning principles is what will eventually rise us from our fallen state and bring us back to the presence of God.

You see, then, how we can be “joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together” (Romans 8:17). You can see, then, how atonement is not something Jesus did for us so much as it is the application of principles of the gospel which we do together with Jesus. The Savior’s atoning sacrifice and His atoning mission are things Jesus did for us, and those cannot be replaced, nor can we progress without them. But one of the most common things Jesus taught during His earthly mission to was follow Him, and we are to do that by following His example in applying atoning principles in our lives. And we can better make that application and receive the blessings associated with it when we better understand the meaning of atonement.

With this new and improved understanding of atonement, I hope it is clear why President Nelson labeled as ‘doctrinally incomplete shortcut phrases’ the common things we tend to say in the Church like “applying the atonement of Jesus.” Throwing that phrase out like a sound bite or using it out of context will often twist, or perhaps obscure, the meaning of atonement. Because I have recognized the need to apply the larger concept of atonement to my life, in recent years, I have found myself speaking more in terms of principles of atonement, and only speaking of the atonement of Jesus Christ when I really mean his mission, and of course referring to the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ as just that and not with any shortcut phrases. Again, the very way that we talk about this subject could be the source of the trouble many people have in understanding and applying atonement to their lives. I have found that this mental and verbal change has made the atonement more applicable in my life and circumstances.

I should also point out that the “atonement” as a principle and the “atonement of Christ” as in His mission, could be considered synonymous if you think of the later phrase not as a singular event but rather as the atoning process that we all must go through for eternal life and exaltation, which is the same atoning process that Christ went through. I believe that each one of us needs to work out an atonement. That’s not to say that we must perform the same infinite atoning sacrifice that the Savior did—that is a gift from God. “For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent” (D&C 19:16). We do need, however, to reach a state of atonement, or unity with God. And the need to be one with God shouldn’t be a foreign concept to anyone familiar with the scriptures. “I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine” (D&C 38:27).

If being saved, in a religious sense, means being one with God, then I think we can safely paraphrase the third Article of Faith and encapsulate much of this discussion: We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be made one with God, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

Conclusion

Atonement is both a central and all-encompassing principle of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The implications of this understanding of atonement are indeed infinite and eternal, as described in The Book of Mormon (2 Nephi 9:7, Alma 34:10-12). If your experience is anything like mine, as you come to understand the atonement more fully, the scriptures and the plan of salvation will open up to your mind like never before. You’ll start seeing the atonement, or atonement principles, everywhere in the gospel, throughout the scriptures and in all the dealings of God with man.

Perhaps it goes without saying, but these are my thoughts on the subject of atonement and do not necessarily represent those of my church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Of course, I feel my opinions are founded in the teachings of the prophets and in the scriptures, and most importantly in the inspiration from the Holy Ghost that I have received. If there are errors in what I have presented, they are my errors as an imperfect reflection of God’s perfect light and truth. The Spirit reveals many wonderful truths to my spirit, but my temporal mind and body is not yet in a state of atonement nor able to fully understand nor communicate these beautiful eternal principles.

I feel like I’ve barely scratched the surface in answering the question about what the atonement means, but hopefully this has provided a good launching pad for you in your personal studies. I hope this explanation of how I see things has expanded your vision of the meaning and application of the atonement and that the Spirit of the Lord will continue to give you additional insights into how to apply it to your life.

Mormons’ View of Christopher Columbus

While I have always had high esteem for Christopher Columbus, he seems to be increasingly criticized into today’s world. I hear reports that kids growing up today are told in school that he was a horrible man. Not fully understanding these criticisms, I recently undertook to studying about his life and accomplishments, including reading a new biography on Columbus called “Christopher Columbus: A Man among Gentiles” written by an LDS author, Clark B. Hinckley. While I have titled this post “Mormons’ View of Christopher Columbus” it might be better titled “This Mormon’s View of Christopher Columbus.” Please be aware that my writings are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Mormon Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

What the Prophets have Taught about Christopher ColumbusThis PowerPoint presentation was given at the LDS Institute of Religion on Nov 3, 2017.

That We May be RedeemedColumbus Appeared in Spirit to Wilford Woodruff

In August 1877, Wilford Woodruff, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, was the first president of the recently dedicated St. George Temple of the LDS Church. He reported that one day, the spirits of the founding fathers of the United States of America and other prominent men, and possibly women as well, appeared to him and asked for temple ordinances to be performed in their behalf:

“The spirits of the dead gathered around me, wanting to know why we did not redeem them. Said they, “You have had the use of the Endowment House for a number of years, and yet nothing has ever been done for us. We laid the foundation of the government you now enjoy, and we never apostatized from it, but we remained true to it and were faithful to God.” . . . They waited on me for two days and two nights. I thought it very singular, that notwithstanding so much work had been done, and yet nothing had been done for them . . . I straightway went into the baptismal font and called upon brother McCallister [J. D. T. McCallister, first counselor in the temple presidency] to baptize me for the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and fifty other eminent men, making one hundred in all, including John Wesley, Columbus, and others.” (Wilford Woodruff, in Journal of Discourses, 19:229. Also see Benson, Ezra Taft This Nation Shall Endure, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1977, 22.)

Columbus–A Man among the Gentiles

Portrait of Christopher ColumbusWhile it is interesting to note is that Christopher Columbus was among these “eminent men,” for Latter-day Saints, this is no surprise given the mention of him in the Book of Mormon. Mormons believe that Christopher Columbus is mentioned, though not by name, in the Book of Mormon when the ancient American prophet Nephi sees in vision the discovery and colonizing of America.

“And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land” (1 Nephi 13:12).

James E. Talmage, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in the early 1900s, said this in his seminal book, Jesus the Christ, regarding Columbus:

“Unto Nephi, son of Lehi, was shown the future of his people, including the degeneracy of a branch thereof, afterward known as Lamanites and in modern times as American Indians. The coming of a man from among the Gentiles, across the deep waters, was revealed in such plainness as to positively identify that man with Columbus; and the coming of other Gentiles to this land, out of captivity, is equally explicit. … The establishment of a great Gentile nation on the American continent, the subjugation of the Lamanites or Indians, the war between the newly established nation and Great Britain, or “their mother Gentiles,” and the victorious outcome of that struggle for independence, are set forth with equal clearness in the same chapter.”

Elder Mark E. Petersen, another apostle of the Quorum of the Twelve, also confirmed that that man among the Gentiles is Columbus.

When Columbus went to King Ferdinand, he said, “I came to Your Majesty as the emissary of the Holy Ghost.” When he stood before the clergy of San Esteban, he insisted to them that he must be regarded as a man inspired. Columbus’s own son, Fernando, in a biography of his father, quotes the discoverer as saying on one occasion, “God gave me the faith and afterward the courage so that I was quite willing to undertake the journey.” And the last will and testament of Christopher Columbus includes this expression: “In the name of the Most Holy Trinity, who inspired me with the idea and afterward made perfectly clear to me that I could navigate and go to the Indies from Spain by traversing the ocean westward” (Wasserman, Columbus, pp. 46, 61). Columbus was inspired, and Nephi looked upon him and beheld him coming to the Western Hemisphere” (Elder Mark E. Petersen – The Great Prologue, BYU Speeches, Sep. 29, 1974).

Finally, Gordon B. Hinckley, 15th president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, confirmed this about Christopher Columbus:

“The entire world is celebrating this month the five hundredth anniversary of the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus. Admiral Samuel Eliot Morison, his biographer, says, “This night of October 11–12 [1492] was one big with destiny for the human race, the most momentous ever experienced aboard any ship in any sea.” (Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A Life of Christopher Columbus, Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1942, p. 223.)

“In my private commemoration of this event, I have read and reread one important and prophetic verse from the Book of Mormon [1 Ne. 13:12], and also a very long biography of Christopher Columbus. …We interpret that [verse] to refer to Columbus. It is interesting to note that the Spirit of God wrought upon him. After reading that long biography, a Pulitzer winner of forty years ago, titled Admiral of the Ocean Sea—I have no doubt that Christopher Columbus was a man of faith, as well as a man of indomitable determination” (Building Your Tabernacle – Gordon B. Hinckley – October 1992).

Christopher Columbus Vicariously Ordained a High Priest

President Ezra Taft Benson,  13th president of the Church, said that not only was Christopher Columbus among the eminent men who appeared to Wilford Woodruff, but Columbus was one of only four men ever known to be vicariously ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood office of High Priest.

“The temple work for the fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence and other Founding Fathers has been done. All these appeared to Wilford Woodruff when he was president of the St. George Temple. President George Washington was ordained a high priest at that time. You will also be interested to know that, according to Wilford Woodruff’s journal, John Wesley, Benjamin Franklin, and Christopher Columbus were also ordained high priests at that time. When one casts doubt about the character of these noble sons of God, I believe he or she will have to answer to the God of heaven for it.” (Benson, Ezra Taft This Nation Shall Endure, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1977, 22.)

The Lord Opened My Mind

Now let’s take a closer look at Christopher Columbus’ life and events and the things he is known to have said and done which provide evidence as to why the eminent figure of history has been so honored by Mormon prophets and members. In chapter 1 of Christopher Columbus –  A Man among Gentiles, author Clark B. Hinckley says,

“Columbus himself knew exactly why he was compelled, against all odds, to do what he did. He described his motivation in these remarkable words: ‘With a hand that could be felt, the Lord opened my mind to the fact that it would be possible to sail and he opened my will to desire to accomplish the project . . . This was the fire that burned within me . . . Who can doubt that this fire was not merely mine, but also of the Holy Spirit . . . urging me to press forward?’ (West and Kling, Libro, 105.) The story of Columbus is, among many other things, a story of the fulfillment of prophecy. More than two thousand years passed from the time that simple prophecy was recorded by Nephi in the wilderness of Arabia until the fulfillment of that prophecy with Columbus’s successful voyage of discovery. And without access to Nephi’s prophecy, Columbus himself described its perfect and exact fulfillment.”

Columbus further stated about the years he spent getting approval and financing to make the voyage across the Atlantic: “I spent seven years here in your royal court discussing this subject with the leading persons in all the learned arts, and their conclusion was that all was in vain. That was the end, and they gave it up. But afterwards it all turned out just as our redeemer Jesus Christ had said, and as he had spoken earlier by the mouth of his holy prophets” (West and Kling, Libro, 107).

Near Mutiny Almost Terminated the Voyage before His Discovery

Christopher Columbus on Santa Maria in 1492On August 3, 1492, Columbus departed from Spain with three ships: the Santa María, captained by Columbus, and two smaller vessels, the Pinta and the Niña. Columbus first sailed to the Canary  Islands, where he restocked provisions and made repairs to his ships. The three ships then departed on September 6th for what turned out to be a five-week voyage across the ocean, though they weren’t without drama before they reached their destination on October 12, 1492. This is what Hinckley reports in Chapter 6 of his book:

“On 9 October, when the winds were light and the ships were traveling at only about 2 knots, the Pinzón brothers came aboard the Santa María, where they ‘held a more or less stormy conference with Columbus in his cabin, demanded that the search for land be abandoned, and that advantage be taken of the southerly breeze to start home.’ Morison concludes that Columbus convinced his captains to carry on for three more days and that the captains returned to their respective ships. On the morning of 10 October the wind picked up and the ships sped along at 7 knots. The renewed easterly winds fueled fears among the crew that a return voyage would be impossible, and the men confronted Columbus ‘with one voice’ demanding that he turn back. (Morison, Admiral of the Ocean Sea, 220–21.) This was where the enterprise came the closest to failure.”

“…One can hardly blame the sailors for their concerns nor consider them cowardly for their desire to turn around and head home. They had experienced two false landfalls, they had been in open ocean at least twice as long as any previous expedition, and by every reasonable measure they were beyond where they had been told they would find land. They had passed the 65th meridian and were north of Puerto Rico. If one looks at a map today and blocks out the Americas—unknown to Columbus and his crew—one might begin to sense the growing despair, even fear, felt by the crew. Morison characterized the attempted mutiny with these observations: ‘It was . . . the inevitable conflict between a man of one great, compelling idea and those who did not share it in anything like the same degree . . . Their issue with their commander was the eternal one between imagination and doubt, between the spirit that creates and the spirit that denies.’ (Morison, Admiral of the Ocean Sea, 215.) Columbus was unwavering, and his vision prevailed.”

Guardian Angel of America

Landing of ColumbusOrson Hyde said that the Book of Mormon prophet Moroni “calmed the troubled elements” during Columbus’ voyage, he might well have been referring to those events of October 9-10, 1492. Orson Hyde was called as one of the original members of the Twelve Apostles by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the early days of the restoration of gospel of Jesus Christ. He gave a patriotic talk about America in Salt Lake City on July 4, 1854 in which he referred to Moroni as the “guardian angel of America.” Elder Hyde said, “That same angel of God that appeared to Joseph Smith presides over the destiny of the United States of America.” Elder Hyde said that Moroni was in the camp with George Washington and helped when he had trouble. He said that same angel was with Christopher Columbus and gave him deep impressions and dreams and visions respecting the new world. And according to Elder Glen L. Rudd in a BYUI Devotional, “that same angel was with Columbus on the stormy deep. He guided his frail vessel to the desired haven, and he calmed the troubled elements” (see The Angel Moroni by Elder Glen L. Rudd, BYU–Idaho Devotional – March 11, 2003).

Comfort from a Celestial Voice

During Columbus’ fourth voyage to the Americas, he and his crew encountered many terrible storms, they had a failed attempt to establish a settlement in Central America, they had many battles and with the native inhabitants, and eventually became shipwrecked and stranded on the island of Jamaica. During this voyage, on 6 April 1503, Columbus had one of the seminal experiences of his life where he heard a celestial voice both chastise him and comfort him and buoy him up.

“I was completely alone outside on this dangerous coast in a high fever and a state of great exhaustion. All hope of escape was dead. I struggled up to the highest point of the ship, weeping and calling in a trembling voice to your Highnesses’ Lord of Hosts in every direction for comfort, but there was no reply. Exhausted and groaning, I fell as if asleep and heard a very compassionate voice saying:

‘O fool, slow to believe and serve thy God, the God of all! What more did he do for Moses or David his servant than he has done for thee? Since thou wast born, ever has He had thee in His watchful care. When He saw thee at an age that pleased Him, He caused thy name to sound marvelously in the land. The Indies, which were so rich a part of the world, He gave thee for thine own; thou hast divided them as it pleased thee, and He enabled thee to do this. Of the barriers of the Ocean Sea, which were closed with such mighty chains, He gave thee the key; and thou wast obeyed in many lands, and among Christians thou hast gained an honorable fame. What did He do more for the people of Israel when He brought them out of Egypt? Or for David, who from a shepherd He made to be King of Judea? Turn thyself to Him, and know now thine error; His mercy is infinite; thine old age shall not prevent thee from achieving all great things; He has many inheritances very great. Abraham was over a hundred years old when he begat Isaac, and Sarah was not a young girl. Thou criest for help, doubting. Answer, who has afflicted thee so greatly and so often, God or the world? The privileges, letters and promises that God gives are all fully kept, and after receiving service his favors increase and He grants his servants paradise. I have spoken of that which thy Creator has done for thee and does for all men. Now in part He shows thee the reward for the anguish and danger which thou hast endured in the service of others.’

“I heard all of this as if I were only partially conscious, and I had no answer to give to words so true, but could only weep for my errors. He, whoever he was who spoke to me, ended by saying: “Fear not; have trust; all these tribulations are written upon marble and are not without cause.”( Varela and Gil, Textos, 491–92)

A Divinely Chosen Person

The Book of Prophecies (in Spanish, El Libro de las Profecías) is a compilation of writing and revelations written by Christopher Columbus towards the end of his life. In Delno West’s introduction to the English translation of the book, he summarizes Columbus’ character and motives:

“Christopher Columbus looked upon himself as a man of destiny who had been given a charismatic gift to understand Scripture, navigation, maps, winds, tides, astronomy, cosmography, mathematics and related sciences. His understanding of his mission, or enterprise, was drawn from the Bible or proved by the Bible, and he knew that he was opening up new lands rich with gold and other valuables. He believed himself a chosen person working for the good of all Christendom in opening up the rest of the world to the gospel message. He knew that he would be misunderstood and maligned, but he accepted that as the lot of a divinely chosen person” (Libro de las profecias, p. 105. Raccolta, pt. I, vol. ii, p. 79. Also see Columbus and the Hand of God by De Lamar Jensen, Emeritus professor of history at BYU, Ensign Magazine, October 1992).

A Man Alone with God

Samuel Eliot Morison, author of Admiral of the Ocean Sea, said this of Columbus.

“For he was not, like a Washington, a Cromwell or a Bolivar, an instrument chosen by multitudes to express their wills and lead a cause; Columbus was a Man with a Mission. . . . He was Man alone with God against human stupidity and depravity, against greedy conquistadors, cowardly seamen, even against nature and the sea. Always with God, though. . . . Men may doubt this, but there can be no doubt that the faith of Columbus was genuine and sincere, and that his frequent communion with forces unseen was a vital element in his achievement.” (Samuel Eliot Morison, Admiral of the Ocean Sea (Boston: Little, Brown, 1942), 46—47.)

Columbus and Revelation

LDS Church scholar Hugh Nibley wrote about Christopher Columbus in chapter 2 of his book, The Prophetic Book of Mormon. Said Nibley:

“[Columbus’] contemporary and friend, Las Casas, in an oft-quoted passage says he was as certain of finding what he said he would as if he had it already locked up in his trunk. Las Casas tells how “from all sides and in many ways did God give Columbus motives and causes that he should not doubt to undertake so great a deed,” and that “God seemed to move him on by constant pushes.” (Bartolome de las Casas, Historia de las Indias (Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Economica, 1951), 27—34.) Everything else in Columbus’ life is subservient to the carrying out of that one mission. The aim and purpose of all his work and suffering was what happened at 2 A.M. on the morning of October 12, 1492, and must not be judged by what happened after (it was “the wrath of God upon the seed of my brethren,” says Nephi), or by any other quirks or misadventures. In retrospect we see that this is so—but Columbus himself always knew it was: God had chosen him to do this one great deed.

“… Sailing into a perfect blank on the map, Columbus infallibly did the right thing: “He did not make a single false move in the entire voyage!” says the geographer Professor Nunn. He maintains that Columbus must have been the discoverer of the Trade and prevailing Westerly Winds since it was only by taking fullest advantage of both that his journey was possible—yet his subsequent voyages show that Columbus knew nothing about the wind system. (See George E. Nunn, The Geographical Conceptions of Columbus, New York: American Geographical Society, 1924.) This was not Columbus’ doing. Neither was the flight of birds that appeared just in time to keep the ships from turning back, nor the sudden rising of the sea that at another time inspired the expedition to continue. Call it what you will, Columbus was convinced he was being helped.

“Finally a day came when he was forced to give the whole fleet his solemn word that he would turn back within two days if land was not discovered—and on the morning of the second day land was discovered. About eight or nine hours before the discovery, at sunset on October 11, Columbus gave a strange and sudden order for a marked change of course. ‘Why he did this, nobody explained,’ writes Professor Morison, a very sober historian and a nautical expert. (Morison, Admiral of the Ocean Sea, 223.) But he assures us that if he had not done it, the great discovery of October 12, 1492, would have been a tragic discovery of deadly reefs that lay but a short distance dead ahead of the little fleet on its original course….’No man alive,’ says Morison, speaking as a mariner, ‘limited to the instruments and means at Columbus’s disposal, could obtain anything near the accuracy of his results.’ (Morison, Admiral of the Ocean Sea, 195.)

Columbus and the Hand of God

“I could sense [God’s] hand upon me,” wrote Columbus, “so that it became clear to me that it was feasible to navigate from here to the Indies, and he gave me the will to do it” (Raccolta, pt. I, vol. ii, p. 79.). Regarding Columbus’ feeling of guidance by the hand of God, professor of history at BYU De Lamar Jensen said:

“Perhaps nothing irked his contemporaries more than Columbus’s frank assertion that he was divinely chosen. ‘God made me the messenger of the new heaven and the new earth, of which He spoke in the Apocalypse of St. John after having spoken of it by the mouth of Isaiah,’ Columbus wrote to a friend and confidant of the queen, ‘and he showed me where to find it.’ (Columbus to Doña Juana de la Torre, Raccolta di documenti e studi pubblicati della R. Commissione Colombiana, pt. I, vol. ii; I Scriti di Cristoforo Colombo, ed. Cesare de Lollis (Rome: 1894), p. 66.)

“…Columbus was convinced that the key to his enterprise was the spiritual gifts given him by the Lord: ‘He bestowed the arts of seamanship upon me in abundance, and has given me what was necessary from [astronomy], geometry, and arithmetic; and has given me adequate inventiveness in my soul.’ Columbus was certain that God provided these gifts to be used in His service, ‘encouraging me to go forward, and without ceasing they inflame me with a sense of great urgency.’ (Ibid., p. 79. also see Columbus and the Hand of God By De Lamar Jensen, Emeritus professor of history at BYU, Ensign Magazine, October 1992)

God Gave Me the Spirit and Intelligence for It

From chapter 18 of Clark B. Hinckley’s book, he summarizes Christopher Columbus’ life this way:

“Finally, what emerges from Columbus’s words as we have them in his letters, journals, and other documents is a man of deep and abiding faith. His piety was not a hollow set of daily rituals or outward appearances; his faith in God was the foundation of all he did, it was the driver of his life, and it sustained him through disappointment, rejection, and deep discouragement. He was ‘longsuffering in the challenges and adversity that always beset him, which were incredible and infinite, always with great faith in the divine Providence’ (Las Casas, Historia, 1:44). His faith begat hope that enabled him to do what others deemed impossible. He prayed with faith and received answers through faith: ‘I prayed to the most merciful Lord concerning my desire, and he gave me the spirit and the intelligence for it’ (West and Kling, Libro, 105).”

Columbus as a Forerunner to Christ like John the Baptist

Historian and biographer Felipe Fernandez-Armesto observed that Columbus, “saw himself, like that other hero of his, John the Baptist, as ‘a man sent from God.’”(Columbus on Himself, 156.) Columbus saw himself in a similar role as the forerunner of Jesus Christ to help pave the way for our Savior’s second coming. Christopher Columbus expert Delano West observed, “John the Baptist was . . . the messenger of the New Testament. He paved the way for Christ’s mission during the First Advent as Columbus would pave the way for the Second Advent.”(West and Kling, Libro, 73) Washington Irving, in his landmark biography of the Admiral of the Ocean Sea, observed that Columbus “considered his great discovery but as a preparatory dispensation of Providence.” (Irving, Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus, 57)

Why Columbus Matters: The Protestant Revolution

Columbus historian Clark B. Hinckley notes:

“When Columbus’s little storm-battered ship floated into Lisbon in March 1493, it was as if someone had struck a match in dry tinder. The news spread across Europe with remarkable speed, and as old ideas faded, a new landscape—not just geographical but intellectual, artistic, and spiritual—emerged. …Not only did Columbus unlock the gates of the Ocean Sea but his accomplishments were a decisive factor in unlocking the intellectual and spiritual darkness that had encompassed Europe for centuries and was just beginning to fade. An awakening of the human spirit would be felt across Europe and manifest in many ways. In 1517, Martin Luther would publish his ninety-five theses, daring to speak out against corruption in Rome and forcing reforms in the Church. Luther would later translate the Bible into German, a work that would have an enormous effect on German culture. Luther’s work would be followed by William Tyndale’s translation of the Bible into English in 1525, the publication of which would change not only English history but the English language. …With new protestant churches in Germany and England, the Reformation would become the Protestant revolution.” (Christopher Columbus: A Man among Gentiles, Chapter 17, Why Columbus Matters)

It all turned out just as our redeemer Jesus Christ had said

One of the most remarkable aspects of Christopher Columbus’s life and character is the degree to which he understood his God-given mission, divine protection, and place in history. Said Columbus:

“The Lord purposed that there should be something clearly miraculous in this matter of the voyage to the Indies . . . I spent seven years here in your royal court discussing this subject with the leading persons in all the learned arts, and their conclusion was that all was in vain. That was the end, and they gave it up. But afterwards it all turned out just as our redeemer Jesus Christ had said, and as he had spoken earlier by the mouth of his holy prophets.” (West and Kling, Libro, 107)

How to Vote: Gospel Principles for Choosing Political Candidates

In anticipation of the upcoming presidential election in the United States, I have asked many people why they support their candidate of choice. I was curious how my own decision making process aligned, or not, with other people’s. Reasons varied, of course, but generally focused around job qualifications and policy stances. Very few people, thought, cited principles, their own or the candidates, when telling be about their decision making process on who to vote for.

The primary and overriding character trait I am looking for from a political official is honesty and integrity. I don’t care how smart, how politically savvy, how well spoken, and how talented an individual is, if I cannot trust that they’ll always act with integrity, then I don’t want them in a leadership position. I would gladly vote for a less qualified, less capable candidate who is honest over a more qualified and capable candidate that I cannot trust.

principles, not people, causes, not candidates, maxwellBut those are my opinions, and this line of thought got me thinking about the eternal gospel principles behind the decision of who to vote for. And I wondered what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches regarding how to vote, as the Church itself remains politically neutral and will not tell you who to vote for, candidates or political parties. As Elder Neal A. Maxwell, said:

“Discipleship includes good citizenship. In this connection, if you are a careful student of the statements of the modern prophets, you will have noticed that with rare exceptions—especially when the First Presidency has spoken out—the concerns expressed have been over moral issues, not issues between political parties. The declarations are about principles, not people; and causes, not candidates” (A More Determined Discipleship, 10 October 1978).

Here’s what I found from the Church on how to vote, or as I’m calling it, gospel principles for choosing political candidates.

What the Scriptures Say about Who to Vote For

honest men should be sought“And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil. I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free. Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn. Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil” (D&C 98:5-10).

What Modern Prophets Say about How to Vote

upright and good and aspirational leaders - ChristoffersonWhen I was listening to LDS General Conference in April of this year, I was struck by something Elder D. Todd Christofferson said about his father, a politician. I wonder if he was subtlety giving us criteria by which we should select candidates to vote for. He said his father, a city councilman, was “upright and good and an aspirational example.” Here’s the full quote in context:

“I myself was blessed with an exemplary father. I recall that when I was a boy of about 12, my father became a candidate for the city council in our rather small community. He did not mount an extensive election campaign—all I remember was that Dad had my brothers and me distribute copies of a flyer door to door, urging people to vote for Paul Christofferson. There were a number of adults that I handed a flyer to who remarked that Paul was a good and honest man and that they would have no problem voting for him. My young boy heart swelled with pride in my father. It gave me confidence and a desire to follow in his footsteps. He was not perfect—no one is—but he was upright and good and an aspirational example for a son” (from his talk entitled Fathers).

John Taylor, the third President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said this in 1855: “We believe that all legislative assemblies should confine themselves to constitutional principles; and that all such laws should be implicitly obeyed by every American . . . .We believe that legislators ought to be chosen on account of their intelligence, honor, integrity, and virtue, and not because they belong to some particular party clique. We believe that the high party strife, logrolling, wirepulling, and political juggling, and spoliation, are a disgrace to any politician, that they are beneath the dignity of an American, and disgraceful and humiliating, alike to the people and statesmen of this great republic” (John Taylor, 1855, Gospel Kingdom, p. 310). This quote was found on TheMoralLiberal.com, among other online sources.

Another guideline was given by President David O. McKay in his October 1962 General Conference talk entitled, The Gospel and the Individual:

“In these days of uncertainty and unrest, liberty-loving people’s greatest responsibility and paramount duty is to preserve and proclaim the freedom of the individual, his relationship to Deity, and the necessity of obedience to the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Only thus will mankind find peace and happiness. We find ourselves now immersed in a great political campaign in America for the purpose of selecting candidates for office in local, state, and national positions. We urge you as citizens to participate in this great democratic process in accordance with your honest political convictions. However, above all else, strive to support good and conscientious candidates of either party who are aware of the great dangers inherent in communism, and who are truly dedicated to the Constitution in the tradition of our rounding fathers. They should also pledge their sincere fealty to our way of liberty—a liberty which aims at the preservation of both personal and property rights. Study the issues, analyze the candidates on these grounds, and then exercise your franchise as free men and women. Never be found guilty of exchanging your birthright for a mess of pottage (Gen. 25:30-34)!”

Civic Standards for the Faithful Saints

As I have studied this subject, I found a great talk by Ezra Taft Benson from the April 1972 General Conference called Civic Standards for the Faithful Saints. In it, he said, “The First Presidency …gave us the guideline a few years ago of supporting political candidates ‘who are truly dedicated to the Constitution in the tradition of our Founding Fathers.’” He went on to list what he called the “four great civic standards for the faithful Saints.” They are:

  1. “First, the Constitution ordained by God through wise men.”
  2. “Second, the scriptures, particularly the Book of Mormon.”
  3. “Third, the inspired counsel of the prophets, especially the living president.”
  4. “Fourth, the guidance of the Holy Spirit.”

Stand Up for Freedom No Matter What the Cost

Finally, here is another quote I really like from Ezra Taft Benson. I put it last because I’m not certain of the accuracy of the source. I only found it one a single website called inspiredconstitution.org. According to the site, this is a statement from Ezra Taft Benson as quoted by Jerreld L. Newquist in his book, Prophets, Principles and National Survival.

“There are some people who hesitate to get into this fight for freedom because it’s controversial, or they’re not sure if we’re going to win. These people have two blind spots. First, they fail to realize that life’s decisions should be based on principles—not on Gallup polls. There were men at Valley Forge who weren’t sure how the Revolution would end, but they were in a much better position to save their own souls and their country than those timid men whose major concern was deciding which side was going to win, or how to avoid controversy. After all, the basic purpose of life is to prove ourselves—not to be with the majority when it’s wrong. We must discharge responsibilities not only to our church, home and profession, but also to our country. Otherwise, we do not merit the full blessings of a kind Providence. There are people tonight all over the world who in their own courageous and sometimes quiet way are working for freedom. In many cases we will never know until the next life all they sacrificed for liberty. These patriots are receiving heaven’s applause for the role they are playing, and in the long run that applause will be louder and longer than any they could receive in this world.

This leads me to the second blind spot of those who hesitate to get into the fight. And that is their failure to realize that we will win in the long run, and for keeps, and that they pass up great blessings by not getting into the battle now when the odds are against us and the rewards are greatest. The only questions, before the final victory, are, first, “What stand will each of us take in this struggle?”; and second, “How much tragedy can be avoided by doing something now?” Time is on the side of truth—and truth is eternal. Those who are fighting against freedom may feel confident now, but they are short-sighted. This is still God’s world. The forces of evil, working through some mortals, have made a mess of a good part of it. But, it is still God’s world. In due time when each of us has had a chance to prove ourselves—including whether or not we are going to stand up for freedom—then God will interject himself and the final and eternal victory shall be for free agency. And then shall those people on the sidelines, and those who took the wrong but temporarily popular course, lament their decisions. To the patriots I say this: Take that long eternal look. Stand up for freedom, no matter what the cost. It can save your soul—and maybe your country. (Ezra Taft Benson, 9/23/63)”

Conclusion

I want to help save the country by casting my vote for someone who will strengthen our nation. But as President Benson said, I am most concerned about the salvation of my soul and that can only be done by staying on the Lord’s side and following his counsel as received through His Spirit, the scriptures, and the modern prophets. That counsel tells me that I should not select candidates for political office based on party affiliation or the way the polls tell me other people are voting. Therefore,  I will cast my vote based on principles, mine and the candidates. I will seek out and vote for the candidate who, in my evaluation, has demonstrated wisdom and competence, who loves freedom and goodness, and who, most importantly, has honesty and integrity.

The Crucible of Doubt

The Crucible of Doubt coverI wasn’t sure what to expect when I picked up and began reading The Crucible of Doubt by Terryl Givens and Fiona Givens. I assumed it was addressed to members of the Church of Jesus Christ who were having doubts in their testimony of the restored gospel, which really isn’t me. But I also assumed it would give advice to faithful Mormons on how to help those who are struggling with doubts. The book had good reviews, so I thought I’d give it a whirl.

As it turns out, I really liked the book. It addressed some difficult subjects, such as contradictions in the scriptures and mistakes made by men we hold as present-day prophets of God. I found the book to be educational and faith promoting. It discussed gospel subjects from a perspective infrequently seen in the church, one that is very comforting to me or anyone who is on a quest for greater faith.

Here are some of my favorite quotes from the book The Crucible of Doubt:

Chapter 5: On Prophecy and Prophets: The Perils of Hero Worship

“[True prophets] have steadfastly refused to be the keepers of an individual’s conscience. Brigham Young protested the perils of slavish obedience and submission: “I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied. I wish them to know for themselves and understand for themselves.”(Brigham Young, Complete Discourses, ed. Richard S. Van Wagoner (Salt Lake City: Smith-Pettit Foundation, 2009), 2:1008.)

“Elsewhere [Brigham Young] reaffirmed: “I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful that they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwa[r]t the purposes of God. . . . Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.” (Young, Complete Discourses, 4:1941.)

“[Brigham Young’s] beloved younger colleague, the colorful J. Golden Kimball, reminded his audience that “There are not enough Apostles in the Church to prevent us from thinking, and they are not disposed to do so; but some people fancy that because we have the Presidency and Apostles of the Church that they will do the thinking for us. There are men and women so mentally lazy that they hardly think for themselves. To think calls for effort, which makes some men tired and wearies their souls. No man or woman can remain in this Church on borrowed light.”(J. Golden Kimball, in Conference Report, April 1904, 97.)

“However, in 1945, a Church magazine urged upon its readers the exact opposite, that “When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done.” Many are familiar with that expression; fewer are aware that when President George Albert Smith learned of it, he immediately and indignantly repudiated the statement. “Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking,” he wrote, “is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church.” (The offensive statement was published in The Improvement Era, June 1945. Smith responded in a letter to J. Raymond Cope, a Unitarian leader who expressed concern. Dialogue 19.1 (Spring 1986): 35–39.) Regrettably, this myth persists in the minds of many Latter-day Saints, even as leaders disavow infallibility and urge upon members personal responsibility.”

“Whatever spiritual intimations he received of God’s mind and will, however powerful the fonts of inspiration at which he drank, Joseph had to transmit eternal things into the idiom of common English. And that, he found, was no easy task. As he complained to a friend, “Oh Lord God, deliver us from this prison, . . . of a crooked, broken, scattered and imperfect language.”(To William W. Phelps, 27 November 1832, in Dean C. Jessee, ed., Personal Writings of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2002), 287.) And so he related both the epiphanies of celestial brilliance and the merest glimmers of heavenly truth to ready scribes. And then he reworked the language—and enlisted other respected associates to the task of refining and remolding the wording—in an effort to depict more accurately the Divine mind and the truths the Spirit communicated as “pure intelligence flowing unto” him.(Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, eds., The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Orem, Utah: Grandin, 1994), 5.)”

“Outside of Joseph’s scriptural production, his words ranged from wise and inspired to simple opinion—with his audience, then as now, seldom attuned to the differences. Joseph himself complained that “he did not enjoy the right vouchsafed to every American citizen—that of free speech. He said that when he ventured to give his private opinion” about various subjects, they ended up “being given out as the word of the Lord because they came from him.”(Jessee W. Crosby, in Hyrum L. Andrus and Helen Mae Andrus, They Knew the Prophet: Personal Accounts from over 100 People Who Knew Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1974), 140.) When not speaking with prophetic authority, in other words, he claimed no authority at all—which is why his pronouncements on subjects from Lehi’s New World landfall to the prospects of the Kirtland Bank were as liable to error as other men’s. Mormon leaders—like the great souls of other religious traditions—are never assured an unvarying inspiration when they speak or write.”

Chapter 6: On Delegation and Discipleship: The Ring of Pharaoh

“[Austin] Farrer’s effort to balance God’s divine purposes with the imperfection of His human instruments suggests one way Mormons might think about faith-wrenching practices (polygamy), missteps and errors (Adam-God), and teachings that the Church has abandoned but not fully explained (the priesthood ban). Practices, in other words, that challenge and try one’s faith; teachings whose status as eternal truth is either disconcerting, questionable, or now denied. Here is what Farrer said: “Facts are not determined by authority. Authority can make law to be law; authority cannot make facts to be facts.” (Austin Farrer, “Infallibility and Historical Tradition,” in The Truth-Seeking Heart, ed. Ann Loades and Robert MacSwain (Norwich: Canterbury Press, 2006), 83.) Or, as Henry Eyring once quoted his father as saying, “in this church you don’t have to believe anything that isn’t true.” (From Henry J. Eyring, Mormon Scientist: The Life and Faith of Henry Eyring (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2007), 4)”

“If a bishop makes a decision without inspiration, are we bound to sustain the decision? The story is told of a Church official who returned from installing a new stake presidency. “Dad, do you Brethren feel confident when you call a man as the stake president that he is the Lord’s man?” the official’s son asked upon his father’s return home. “No, not always,” he replied. “But once we call him, he becomes the Lord’s man.”(Personal conversation reported to authors by Robert L. Millet.) The answer disconcerts initially. Is this not hubris, to expect God’s sanction for a decision made in error? Perhaps. It is also possible that the reply reveals the only understanding of delegation that is viable. If God honored only those decisions made in perfect accord with His perfect wisdom, then His purposes would require leaders who were utterly incapable of misconstruing His intention, who never missed hearing the still small voice, who were unerringly and unfailingly a perfect conduit for heaven’s inspiration. And it would render the principle of delegation inoperative.”

Chapter 7: Mormons and Monopolies: Holy Persons “Ye Know Not Of”

“In words that should shame those moderns who believe the medieval church was a spiritual wasteland, President John Taylor paid tribute to those holy ones of the past, counterparts of the holy ones Joseph was alerted to in his own day: “There were men in those dark ages who could commune with God, and who, by the power of faith, could draw aside the curtain of eternity and gaze upon the invisible world. . . . There were men who could gaze upon the face of God, have the ministering of angels, and unfold the future destinies of the world. If those were dark ages I pray God to give me a little darkness.” (John Taylor, in Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. (Liverpool, England: Franklin D. Richards and Samuel W. Richards, 1851–86; repr. Salt Lake City, 1974), 16:197–98.)

“Brigham Young could be similarly generous in his conception of who would be found elect in the end: “I never passed John Wesley’s church in London without stopping to look at it. Was he a good man? Yes; I suppose him to have been, by all accounts, as good as ever walked on this earth, according to his knowledge. Has he obtained a rest? Yes, and greater than ever entered into his mind to expect; and so have thousands of others of the various religious denominations.” (Brigham Young, Complete Discourses, ed. Richard S. Van Wagoner (Salt Lake City: Smith-Pettit Foundation, 2009), 3:1480.)

Chapter 8: Spirituality and Self-Sufficiency: Find Your Watering Place

“If there is a perceived need, the Church is there with a solution. Perhaps, one leader has chastened, at a cost: “In recent years we might be compared to a team of doctors issuing prescriptions to cure or to immunize our members against spiritual diseases. Each time some moral or spiritual ailment was diagnosed, we have rushed to the pharmacy to concoct another remedy, encapsulate it as a program and send it out with pages of directions for use. . . . Over medication, over-programming is a critically serious problem.” (Boyd K. Packer, “Let Them Govern Themselves,” address given 30 March 1990,)

“Mere months after the organization of the Church, Joseph was told that this, the last work of the Lord, was to be created “first temporal[ly], and secondly spiritual[ly].”(D&C 29:32) One way to read this is as a reminder that the formal, institutional parameters of the New Jerusalem are easy to put in place. The organizational structure, the blueprints for temples and plats for Zion came readily enough. Forging a people sufficiently sanctified to constitute the people of Zion is another matter entirely. According to the sequence alluded to by the revelation above, we would expect the spiritual qualities of Church members to lag behind the temporal templates—the buildings and programs—within which we work out our salvation.”

“In Salt Lake’s old Thirteenth Ward, Bishop Edwin D. Woolley frequently found himself at odds with President Brigham Young. On a certain occasion, as they ended one such fractious encounter, Young had a final parting remark: “Now, Bishop Woolley, I guess you will go off and apostatize.” To which the bishop rejoined, “If this were your church, President Young, I would be tempted to do so. But this is just as much my church as it is yours, and why should I apostatize from my own church?”(Leonard J. Arrington and Davis Bitton, Saints without Halos (Salt Lake City: Signature, 1981), 61.) That sense of ownership, or, better, of full and equal membership in the body of Christ, was Bishop Woolley’s salvation. He wisely realized, as not all do, that forsaking the Church out of hurt or frustration would be as unprofitable as any other form of misdirected energy.”

“We have all bemoaned the traffic congestion at rush hour, or the heavily populated mountain path where we had hoped to find solitude. We forget that from the perspective of the other travelers—and from any objective point of view—we are the problem we bewail. We are part of the gawking crowds at the overlook, we are an impediment to other anxious shoppers in the checkout line, we are the head and shoulders blocking a perfect view from the moviegoer behind us. Just as we are a part of the Mormon culture we lament. If we allow ourselves to be co-opted by practices or attitudes we deplore, we share in the collective guilt. The pressure to conform to what we see as a dominant cultural orthodoxy is often more imagined than real. A silent majority may be more receptive than we realize to our own yearnings for greater authenticity, honesty, originality, and individualism. Brigham Young was. “I am not a stereotyped Latter-day Saint,” he said, “and do not believe in the doctrine. . . . Away with stereotyped ‘Mormons’!” (Brigham Young, Complete Discourses, ed. Richard S. Van Wagoner (Salt Lake City: Smith-Pettit Foundation, 2009), 3:1668.)

Website review: Remembering the Wives of Joseph Smith

Our family has a tradition to celebrate the prophet Joseph Smith’s birthday on Dec. 23rd of each year.  A friend recently commented that they did not feel there is much to celebrate about Joseph Smith based on many of the things they have read about him lately. We inquired what this was about and they answered that it was about Joseph’s plural wives and other information they had read on a website called Remembering the Wives of Joseph Smith, wivesofjosephsmith.org.

I decided to check out the website. The friend thought it was a credible website, so I wanted to see for myself. While I’m no historian or Mormon Church history expert, I have read a lot of Church history, including a significant amount on difficult subjects like polygamy. As I perused the websites, here are some of the red flags I saw:

Red Flag #1: The Site Author Remains Anonymous

There is no indication of who runs the wivesofjosephsmith.org website.  There’s no about us section or copyright notice. This causes me to wonder, why are they hiding who they are? Even when site visitors have emailed the author and asked who is the sponsor of this website, they still did not answer (see http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/Who.htm ). All the author will state is that “I am a lifelong member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” And when asked if he or she is a member in good standing, the author says “Personally, it has been difficult for me to be comfortable with many of the events surrounding early polygamy – and I suppose this has distanced me somewhat at church.”

Red Flag #2: Bias Comes through in Prejudicial Language

Though the author of the site claims to be simply presenting the unbiased information, he or she lets their true feelings come through often by their comments, conclusions, and by the information they choose and choose not to reveal. The author’s bias is loud and clear when he/she says “My greatest hope in this regard is that one day the LDS church will no longer defend Joseph Smith’s involvement in polygamy as appropriate.”

On their FAQ page, http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/FAQ.htm, the use of quotes shows their skepticism regarding Joseph’s revelation on plural marriage. The author further comes to the conclusion that the church phased out the practice due to intense pressure from the government, not because of revelation from God, again showing prejudice. While it is true there was intense pressure from the government, it was ultimately revelation to the prophet that ended the practice of plural marriage and the sites makes no mention of that.

Red Flag #3: Leaving Out Important Background Information

The author of the site quotes Oliver Cowdery, in reference to Joseph’s first plural wife, Fanny Alger, calling it “a dirty, nasty, filthy affair.” What the author leaves out is a lot of important background to this quote. Oliver’s falling out with Joseph and the Church had largely to do with polygamy. When Oliver found out about Joseph taking an additional wife, he accused Joseph of adultery. Ultimately, Oliver Cowdery who was excommunicated and it was under these circumstances that the quote from Oliver comes.

Red Flag #4: Leaving a False Impression

On this page, http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/Praise.htm, the site author quotes material that is clearly out to make Joseph Smith look like a sex crazed maniac, preying on any woman, no matter how young, who stayed in the same home as him. The author wants to leave the impression that polygamy was simply about Joseph satisfying his manly urges. I don’t believe that’s true of Joseph Smith, and I don’t believe there is evidence that Joseph was that kind of man. There’s no evidence of him bragging of his sexual exploits, as you would expect if he really were a sex-crazed maniac. There’s nothing in Joseph’s language or in the record of his associates to support that conclusion. Joseph’s eye was single to the glory of God, and an honest study of his words and deeds shows that.

The purposeful leaving of a false impression reminds me of Elder Neil L. Andersen’s talk on Joseph Smith in the October 2014 General Conference in which he talks about a misleading photograph taken of Elder Russell M. Nelson. “The picture was true, the caption was true, but the truth was used to promote a false impression.”

Red Flag #5: Pinning Statements on Others

Even thought he author remains anonymous, he or she still feels compelled to pin statements the he or she clearly agrees with, on other people. On this page, http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/Why.htm, the author of the site does not take responsibility for the statements below, pinning them instead on “an increasing number of LDS church members,” but it’s clear these are the author’s feelings:

  • “Joseph Smith’s behavior seems inappropriate or manipulative – perhaps even abusive.”
  • “All this seems foreign to the God they worship and the principles they honor and love.”
  • “They hope for the day when the LDS church will no longer defend Joseph Smith’s behavior in polygamy as appropriate.”
  • “I just want you to know that I don’t think this was appropriate, or of God.”

Again, there is nothing unbiased or objective about these statements. Whether these statements are the author’s or someone else’s, they are jumping to conclusions that are contrary to the teachings of LDS Church leaders.

Conclusion

It is clear that the author of that website feels that Joseph’s practicing of plural marriage was manipulative, inappropriate, and not of God, and he or she is trying to persuade others to draw the same conclusion. The author quotes select information, fills in the blanks with conjecture, and implies conclusions that are subjective.

While I have read much of the same historical material as the author of that website, I have come to much different conclusions. I see Joseph Smith as a man and a prophet of God. He was a good man, but not a perfect man. He made mistakes, but he was faithful to the end in his calling as a prophet of God. While some people choose to attack Joseph Smith, I am going to continue to do my best to defend Joseph Smith, honor him as the great prophet of our dispensation, and testify of the wonderful truths and blessings he brought forth as an instrument in the hands of God.